Posted on 11/11/2009 11:41:08 AM PST by GonzoII
The nub of this argument is that the apostles would not have willingly spent their lives promoting and risking and often suffering death for an untruth.
The problem with this as an argument is that other causes, which most of us would consider untrue or evil, such as Nazism and Marxism, have elicited similar dedication from their proponents.
The intensity with which something is believed does not always correlate to its truth.
I once argued (by correspondence) with an agnostic about this. Six months we traded letters. I pulled out all the usual stuff: philosophy, bibliographic evidence, logic etc. etc., all to no avail. Of course his bottom line claim was that I had simply not given him enough evidence, and the last I heard of him, he told me he was investigating zen buddhism.
I have learned the hard way that objective arguments are useful for keeping a skeptic from changing the subject, but that is about all. The problem with evidential argument is that the doubter will keep raising the bar high enough that has an excuse not to believe. In essence, the agnostic has a “fundamentalist agenda” of his own, one which allows him to live his life as he jolly well pleases. A hard, tedious lesson to learn—but I learned it. Bill O’Reilly likes to use the term “no spin,” but (contrary to what Bill O’Reilly claims) everyone has a spin. It’s a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.
I love Peter Kreeft. He is so clear,logical, and well-spoken.
The best bias is the one the best explains the observed phenomena. One reason I am a conservative.
The reason I am a Christian is the Grace of God, pure and simple. It also helps that it comports with the facts that I have observed.
But the apostles’ “great cause” had died on the cross. The manuscipts (attested to my good bibliographical evidence) describes how they acted like frightened rabbits, one of them so scared he denied his own Master three times. That’s the whole point of the Resurrection of Christ. Christianity puts itself on the objective chopping block, as it were. The ethics of other religions can stand alone as a philosophical approach to a way of life. Buddha taugaht the Golden Rule long before Christ lived, but Buddha is still in his grave. Is Christ? There’s the rub. If Christ was not risen, then people like me are idiots, misled fools, what Paul called, “..of all men the most miserable.” Christian ethics becomes a joke if its formulator was a madman traveling around, forgiving peoples’ sins, allowing men to worship him, claming things only a god (or amadman claiming deity) would say.
No, IF the Bible manuscripts are substantially accurate (and that’s an entirely different set of arguments), then honest thinkers will have reason to consider the claims of Chist. This type of argument convinced General Lew Wallace (author of Ben-Hur) and law Professor Simon Greenleaf, who went on to write a book about how his law students challenged his agnosticsm. His wound up being titled The Testimony of the Evangelists as Examined by the Rules of Evidence (or some title to that effect—I can’t remember exactly). Saul of Tarsus hated Christians vehemently, but wound up being the foremost Christian missionary of all time (his name was changed to Paul).
Yet many other skeptics, even if they hear all of this, demur and continue in their skeptical mindset. The evidence is sufficient for those willing to believe, but not so overwhelming that it will overcome the natural stubbonness of the human heart. I think John 6:44,65 (and the context) about says it.
“The evidence is sufficient for those willing to believe, but not so overwhelming that it will overcome the natural stubbonness of the human heart.” ... And in these latter days, hearts are becoming so hardened that even overwhelming evidence will be spun as a lie. The scriptures tell of this as the last days when we see this. Our redemption draweth nigh ...
Simple logic tells us that Jesus could not have been walking around in a Roman province in a dead human body for forty days and nights without Romans seeing him; they'd have crucified him a second time and done whatever it took to ensure that he stayed crucified.
Nonetheless he did come back and to the people who witnessed it, what they witnessed was utterly indistinguishable from him having come back in his own body.
The mistake people make here is thinking that Jesus was the first and/or the only person ever to have been heard from after he died; he was the last. The OT contains a ghost story (1 Samuel 28:7 - 28:20 or thereabouts) in the familiar tale of Saul, Samuel, and the "witch of Endor" and in times more remote than that, such stories were less rare.
The resurrection was the sort of thing which Julian Jaynes described as "bicameral"; it was the last such thing ever seen by more than one or two people on our planet, and it was not any sort of an "auditory" or visual mass hallucination, but was sufficiently real.
Simple logic tells us that Jesus could not have been walking around in a Roman province in a dead human body for forty days and nights without Romans seeing him; they'd have crucified him a second time and done whatever it took to ensure that he stayed crucified.
Nonetheless he did come back and to the people who witnessed it, what they witnessed was utterly indistinguishable from him having come back in his own body.
The mistake people make here is thinking that Jesus was the first and/or the only person ever to have been heard from after he died; he was the last. The OT contains a ghost story (1 Samuel 28:7 - 28:20 or thereabouts) in the familiar tale of Saul, Samuel, and the "witch of Endor" and in times more remote than that, such stories were less rare.
The resurrection was the sort of thing which Julian Jaynes described as "bicameral"; it was the last such thing ever seen by more than one or two people on our planet, and it was not any sort of an "auditory" or visual mass hallucination, but was sufficiently real.
There are LOTS of stories about dead people communicating since then.
What you mean is that this is the last one you choose to believe in.
My point is that the devotion of Christ’s followers after his death no more proves the truth of his being raised than the similar devotion of others proves the truth of their cause.
I happen to believe Christ was raised, I just object to such easily disposed of arguments being presented as “proof.”
The apostle Paul said believing in Christ requires faith, not proof.
“Proof” of this type will not convince anyone who does not already believe, in which case it’s redundant.
Except maybe for a few skinheads, the Nazis pretty much disappeared after the death of Hitler.
I thought it was all about belief and not proof. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Allow me:
"This type of argument convinced General Lew Wallace (author of Ben-Hur) and law Professor Simon Greenleaf, who went on to write a book about how his law students challenged his agnosticsm. His wound up being titled The Testimony of the Evangelists as Examined by the Rules of Evidence (or some title to that effect—I can’t remember exactly)."
I heard recently that good evidence for the veracity of the New Testament writers was the fact that in a 1st century setting, they made women look better than themselves and they, themselves portrayed, as weaklings. Certainly if they were trying to fool anyone they went about it in a very peculiar way.
Still quite a few Marxists around, and Karl’s been dead a lot longer than Adolph.
If you like, I can find literally hundreds of historical examples where large numbers of people followed causes against what appears to be their own self-interest. Their belief was as intense as that of the apostles, but this intensity does not constitute evidence of the truth of that belief.
I am not saying Christ was not raised, I believe he was. I am merely stating that this article does not present evidence of his being raised.
Unfortunately, after the death of mohammed, his deranged followers did NOT pretty much disappear.
Those are good points. What they prove, however, is that the apostles told the truth as they saw it.
It does not prove “their truth” was in alignment with objective truth.
IOW, they weren’t liars, but they could certainly have been wrong.
Not really. Consider Ezkiel 37:
13 Then you shall know that I am the L-RD, when I open your graves and have you rise from them, O my people!Resurrection says nothing about the resurrected. It only says something about the resurrecter.14 I will put my spirit in you that you may live, and I will settle you upon your land; thus you shall know that I am the L-RD. I have promised, and I will do it, says the L-RD.
ML/NJ
Difference is the Nazis and Marxists spent years being indoctrinated and display a rabid devotion from early on.
While the disciples spent years with Christ they were as cowardly as rabbits one day, and a few days later they had a total transformation in their lives. That transformation led them to boldly preach Christ risen.
What about Thomas?
Not exactly. Asking for reasons is not unbiblical nor unreasonable:
1Pt:3:15: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.